GOVERNMENT
TX JUDGE RULES WARRANTLESS ACQUISITION OF CELL PHONE RECORDS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Warrantless searches using various forms of technology and the extent to which they are covered under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution has seen a lot of time in court lately. The Supreme Court recently heard a highly publicized case on warrantless GPS tracking. But most recently, a Texas District Court judge heard a government appeal over a 2010 ruling that said cell phone records were protected under the Fourth Amendment and therefore required a warrant to obtain.
U.S. District Court Judge Lynn N. Hughes of the Southern District of Texas upheld the original ruling declaring that cell phone records acquired without a warrant was unconstitutional. The Wall Street Journal has more on the story:
“The records would show the date, time, called number, and location of the telephone when the call was made,” Judge Hughes wrote in the decision, dated Nov. 11. “These data are constitutionally protected from this intrusion.”
[...]
Since 2005, more than a dozen magistrate judges have written opinions denying applications for court orders to track cellphones without search warrants. The nation’s roughly 500 magistrate judges handle applications for search warrants and other types of electronic surveillance in federal courts.
Of course, some have upheld warrantless searches. Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Liam O’Grady ruled that the government could obtain data from the Twitter accounts of three WikiLeaks without a search warrant.
[...]
“When the government requests records from cellular services, data disclosing the location of the telephone at the time of particular calls may be acquired only by a warrant issued on probable cause,” Judge Hughes wrote. “The standard under the [existing law] is below that required by the Constitution.”
TX JUDGE RULES WARRANTLESS ACQUISITION OF CELL PHONE RECORDS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Warrantless searches using various forms of technology and the extent to which they are covered under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution has seen a lot of time in court lately. The Supreme Court recently heard a highly publicized case on warrantless GPS tracking. But most recently, a Texas District Court judge heard a government appeal over a 2010 ruling that said cell phone records were protected under the Fourth Amendment and therefore required a warrant to obtain.
U.S. District Court Judge Lynn N. Hughes of the Southern District of Texas upheld the original ruling declaring that cell phone records acquired without a warrant was unconstitutional. The Wall Street Journal has more on the story:
“The records would show the date, time, called number, and location of the telephone when the call was made,” Judge Hughes wrote in the decision, dated Nov. 11. “These data are constitutionally protected from this intrusion.”
[...]
Since 2005, more than a dozen magistrate judges have written opinions denying applications for court orders to track cellphones without search warrants. The nation’s roughly 500 magistrate judges handle applications for search warrants and other types of electronic surveillance in federal courts.
Of course, some have upheld warrantless searches. Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Liam O’Grady ruled that the government could obtain data from the Twitter accounts of three WikiLeaks without a search warrant.
[...]
“When the government requests records from cellular services, data disclosing the location of the telephone at the time of particular calls may be acquired only by a warrant issued on probable cause,” Judge Hughes wrote. “The standard under the [existing law] is below that required by the Constitution.”
